What Should Happen After an Incident at Mon Valley Works? GASP Records Request Provides New Details About Recent Breakdowns

Recent incidents at U.S Steel’s Clairton Coke Works and Edgar Thomson facilities sparked rage and concern among frontline residents and prompted a pair of public statements from the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD).

The statements provided preliminary details about the incidents - which occurred on Feb. 5 at the Clairton Coke Works and Feb. 23 at the Edgar Thomson facility - and noted that ACHD was investigating.

Since then, ACHD has released no further details and no associated enforcement documents have been posted to the department’s online docket.

As part of our watchdog work, GASP made public records requests to ACHD seeking all documents associated with the incidents, including emails and voicemails. 

Those requests were approved in part and denied in part. That means that there were some documents that were not released because they were exempt from the Right to Know law. Why? Because the requested documents were part of an active non-criminal investigation, contained proprietary business information, or were protected by attorney-client privilege (all kosher reasons).

The documents we did receive help provide more information about ACHD’s investigative process and the actions taken by both U.S. Steel and the department following the incidents.

“We think it’s important to share these types of documents not only as a way to ensure that industrial facilities and our local air quality regulators are doing their jobs, but also to help residents understand what things like breakdown reports look like and what kind of information they include,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “Most of all we want to help folks understand what should happen after an incident at the Mon Valley Works and what did happen after the most recent incidents.”

So, before we get into those documents and what DID happen, we first have to take a look at what SHOULD have happened and why.

Title V Permits & What They Require After a Breakdown

Industrial facilities like U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works and Edgar Thomson plant are subject to a Title V Operating permit. These permits are hundreds of pages long and address every aspect of the facilities’ operations.

This includes details related to what the facility operator must do in the event of an equipment breakdown. 

At both Clairton Coke Works and Edgar Thomson, U.S. Steel is required to take certain actions “in the event that any air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or other source of air contaminants breaks down in such manner as to have a substantial likelihood of causing the emission of air contaminants in violation of this permit, or of causing the emission into the open air of potentially toxic or hazardous materials.”

Those actions include:

1. Notifying ACHD “immediately” but no later than 60 minutes after the breakdown.

2. Providing written notice to ACHD within seven days after the incident.

And those notices - no matter oral or written - need to contain a spate of information including:

• Identification of the equipment that broke down, including location and permit number

• The nature and probable cause of the breakdown

• The expected length of time the equipment is expected to be inoperable and emissions will continue

• Identification of what specific materials (and their quantities) that are being emitted and a statement concerning their toxic qualities “including its qualities as an irritant, and its potential for causing illness, disability, or mortality”

• Measures taken or being taken to minimize the length of the breakdown

• And that additional info requested by ACHD “be submitted as expeditiously as practicable…unless otherwise directed by the department.”

The permits also require U.S. Steel to notify ACHD when the condition causing the breakdown is placed back in operation “by no later than 9 a.m. on the next County business day.”

We know that’s a LOT of info. So, let’s all take a deep breath and get ready to dive into those incidents and associated documents obtained through the state Right to Know process.

About the Feb. 5, 2025 Breakdown at Clairton Coke Works

In the early hours of Feb. 5 an explosion occurred at the Clairton Coke Works injuring two workers. Here’s ACHD’s statement: 

According to US Steel information provided to the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) today, there was an issue with its B Battery at the Clairton plant overnight. They discovered there was a hydraulic failure in a switch of the battery, which led to a buildup of combustible material in the under-fire system, which then ignited. 

That caused an audible “boom” that some residents may have heard, as well as 20 seconds of emissions to leak. The battery was not damaged but was put on idle pending further investigations by US Steel. 

US Steel also reported to ACHD that two individuals, as a result of the incident, needed first aid treatment for getting material in their eyes and went to the hospital but do not have serious injuries. 

While there was an uptick in readings at the Clairton monitor around 4:45 am this morning lasting approximately 75 minutes, the pollution rates rose from 3.5 to 8 µg/m which is well under the EPA 24-hour rate of 35 µg/m. ACHD will continue to monitor results closely.

While an initial breakdown report U.S. Steel submitted to ACHD indicated that the incident in question occurred around 5 a.m., the documentation was received by the department at 10:29 a.m., which appears to have violated the terms of the facility’s Title V permit, missing the reporting deadline by more than four hours.

The written report U.S. Steel was required to submit to ACHD within seven business days appears to have been provided on time:

It should be noted that, according to the document, the B Battery at Clairton Coke Works was damaged and out of commission through Feb. 17 - 12 days after the original incident.

Our documents request also yielded a series of internal emails among ACHD staff regarding PM2.5 concentrations at official monitors and analysis of official data. Those documents can be viewed here, here, and here.

It should also be noted that eight documents related to the incident were not released because they could be part of a non-criminal investigation. As of the date of publication, no notices of violations have been posted to the ACHD enforcement docket related to the incident.

About the Feb. 23, 2025 Incident at the Edgar Thomson Facility

ACHD on Tuesday, Feb. 25 issued a statement about a breakdown at U.S. Steel’s Edgar Thomson facility - one that occurred two days earlier.

Here’s one of two statements the department sent that day:

A review of the initial breakdown reports U.S. Steel sent to ACHD appears to show the company first alerted ACHD via phone call within an hour of the reported incident:

This correspondence was followed up with this written report on Monday, Feb. 24:

Remember when we said ACHD issued two statements Feb. 25? While the first dealt with the breakdown, the second addressed sulfur dioxide exceedances that occurred at the North Braddock monitor (the official monitoring station closest to the Edgar Thomson facility).

Note: While ACHD’s press release did not directly connect the exceedances to the Feb. 23 breakdown, it did included associated documents in GASP’s records request, which would suggest that they are, indeed, related. 

In the exceedance release, ACHD stated it was investigating, and documents provided in GASP’s record request suggests that U.S. Steel was not responsive to requests for additional emissions-related information. 

Air Quality Program staff initially reached out to U.S. Steel by phone on and then followed up with this email on the morning of Feb. 25, asking for details to be sent by 10 a.m.:

ACHD then sent a second, more strongly worded email the next day with a hard deadline. It should be noted that Allyson Holt, ACHD’s air quality manager of compliance and enforcement, was CC'd on this correspondence:

No responses from U.S. Steel were included in GASP’s public records request, which would suggest that ACHD did not receive a response, or that the response - or responses - were not disclosed because the issue is under non-criminal investigation or is otherwise exempt as explained in ACHD’s final response to GASP’s records request.

What Happens Next?

GASP continues to follow these enforcement issues closely. Notices of violations related to these and other air quality compliance documents are posted to the ACHD enforcement docket.

“Unfortunately, that docket has not been updated since Sept. 11, 2024,” GASP Communications Manager Amanda Gillooly explained. “But we have reached out to ACHD’s spokesman, who confirmed that the Air Quality Program was working to get that resource updated. As soon as I see it online, we will provide yinz with an update.”

Stay tuned!